Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 April 9

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< April 8 April 10 >

April 9

edit


Template:Non-administrator observation

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Expanding my closing statement per request on my talk page) I felt as though there were two basic arguments (1) comments from administrators carry no more weight than non-administrators and (2) there are some places on WP where only administrators can carry out certain actions, and it may be helpful for someone to mark his/her own comment a "non-administrator observation". I felt as though both of these points were valid, and well argued. One of the key points central to the second argument was that the marking of a comment is voluntary and self-marked. Marking another editors comment could be construed as belittling. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Non-administrator observation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template serves no useful purpose. There is no where on Wikipedia where the observations of an administrator should count for more or less than the observations of a non-administrator. This template only serves to tag comments in ways that do not reflect how Wikipedia should work: there is no where and there are no comments that need to be flagged by this, as there should not be "classes" of Wikipedia users whose opinions count more or less than others. Jayron32 19:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I get involved in ANIs, and I choose to sometimes add [non-admin] at the end of my sig. so my comments aren't prejudged by me being a lowly editor, and I only do that when I'm making a strong statement, and feel there is a duty to be clear that my opinion isn't a binding decision. It takes no extra effort to tag my way vs. the template, and having an "official" template creates the impression that it 'should' be used, when that isn't true. Truth be told, the current template is distracting and only serves to present non-admin's opinions as "less than" administrators, as per the nom's observation. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yea, I was thinking about this myself earlier today. The use of the template seems to be picking up over the last couple of days too (fad?), unfortunately. So: Delete.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. A very bad thing to have. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For the exact reasons that a few do want to delete it I see as reason to keep. When I am weighing in on what would be a contentious discussion that I want to explicitly signal that I'm not one with the magic washroom key to help point out that outside of the cabal of the mop there are editors who are keeping an eye on things. Hasteur (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are areas such as WP:RPP where only administrators can make useful decisions. Maintaining transparency on such pages is important. →Στc. 19:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's important to distinguish non-admins from admins on pages such as WP:RPP and especially Requests for permissions where some new users may get confused.--Breawycker (talk to me!) 20:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    ...that's not true at all, though. Tools are required to actually change a user's permissions or protect a page, but "administrator" is not at all required to make the decision to actually use the tools in those situations. This has been the idea behind our consensus driven decision making model from the beginnings of Wikipedia, so if you're trying to provide a convincing argument with this then I think you're going to need to provide a more complete argument.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If this is true, than why do think admins, that only they can make this decisions. See comments regarding RFPP and PERM. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 23:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That such things happen doesn't make them right (nevermind the issue of that sort of pissing on lamp posts to steak out turf is a bit... unbecoming). If push really came to shove those notices (warnings?) aren't likely to carry much weight. The discussion would likely revolve around the percentage of error made by the user, not whether or not their actually allowed to close discussions. It's never really come down to a "push comes to shove" situation though (that I'm aware of, at least), since everyone tends to back away from the debate for various reasons.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    PS.: Note also that Courcelles was talking abut the technical (or rather, procedural) matter of applying the template, not actually making the decision. He's actually correct, there.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per above  Liam987 20:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Neutral. It has its useful applications, especially WP:RFPP, WP:AIV, and WP:UAA to signal that a user's comment about a report (for example, to say that an action is unnecessary) isn't an administrator final decision. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 20:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I nominated this template for deletion a year ago for exactly the same reason. ElKevbo (talk) 23:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That brings up a point which I was wondering about, actually. This template was created @ 21:41, August 10, 2010, and I'd swear that this issue has come up before... are we sure that this isn't a moderately long standing recreation of an already deleted template?
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is very, very wrong. Whether a person advancing a position is an administrator or not should have absolutely no bearing on how much weight to give to it. Well-intentioned but ill-advised. I don't see that any of the folk opining to keep have actually addressed this, and indeed the arguments made to support it basically reinforce that there are editors labouring under this misapprehension. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this has been used a lot, and so is useful. If non administrators want to use it they are welcome to, and the pages I see it on some do not have to use it, but do use it. They way I see it it actually draws more atention since it is a big prefix, and it looks as if something is so important to mention that a non administrator has put the effort into say it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is precisely because its use is increasing that it should be deleted. It reinforces the notion that non-admins are just peons chipping in from the sidelines while admins are the ones who make the decisions around here. That is harmful for admins and non-admins alike. The road down which we travel with this is one where people are chided for not using the template, or where well-meaning editors add it to comments made by others, or any other number of nasty unintended consequences. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete This template reinforces a perceived dichotomy between admins and non-admins. Admins are simply editors who have been entrusted with the rights to certain tools, but have no inherent power. In a discussion, it is the quality of the comments that count. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 11:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC) (Where is my magic washroom key? I only got the one to the janitor's closet.)[reply]
  • Delete – The comments of admins are not any more special than those of non-admins and should not be treated as such, and users should not have their posts tagged in such a way that seems to discount their comment because they are not an admin. Also, not every post by a non-admin is simply an "observation", and even if we were to support the use of this template, the wording would have to be changed or else new templates should be created for "Non-administrator conclusion", "Non-administrator compilation of evidence", etc. There is simply no good reason for this template and any situation where a comment must be tagged as not coming from an administrator is a situation that calls for more care than the simple slapping on of a template. Not only does this template not have a good use, it is harmful. —danhash (talk) 15:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Pretty useful for non-admins to voice an opinion in admin area's. Mrlittleirish 15:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are no areas of Wikipedia which are exclusive to admins, nor is there anywhere where the opinion of a non-admin counts for less, or more, than that of an admin. What use does it have. What is the manner of its usefulness? --Jayron32 17:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is exactly the impression that this template creates, that non-admins really don't belong at ANI other other discussions, and ironically, demonstrates why it causes more distraction than benefit. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • What I mean is, in area's where standard users (such as myself) can't make a closing decision, they can put their input. If I was to go and comment somewhere, and then somebody seen it, they could misunderstand me as an administrator, of which I am not. There is a difference in how much an opinions counts between admins and non-admins, or everybody could be an admin, or non-admin. If everybodies opinion is valued just the same on Wikipedia, then why are only certain people admin's? Why is there a huge mess if something turns nasty in an RFA. The template should stay because there is a difference between me and and admin. Note: This made sense to me. It might not to you. Ask for clarifaction. Mrlittleirish 10:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It makes sense: it's just wrong. In this community, it is only what you say which matters and not who you are so far as discussions go. Only admins can act in certain cases, but when it comes to simply stating an opinion the word of an admin does not inherently carry any more weight than anyone else's. This template carries the opposite connotation. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • To reinforce your argument, many non-admins actually do admin work that doesn't require tools. Closing AFDs as Redirect or Keep. I've closed merge and noticeboard discussions, etc, to help reduce the load on admins by mopping up areas that don't need special tools. Admins get the (very powerful) tools because they have proven they understand policy and won't abuse them. What they don't get is 1.5x vote power. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with the view that opinion of a non-admin does not count any less than that of an admin, however I am of the view at some locations, such as WP:RPP, WP:SPI and WP:3RR/N it's use to aid transparency is on the whole useful. Mtking (edits) 23:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete opinions of admins and non-admins should be treated the same, so there is no need to differentiate between them. Night of the Big Wind talk 01:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have absolutely no problem with non-admins commenting in admin areas...if someone has a good, convincing argument/rationale or merely a small, helpful note about something, it doesn't matter if they are an admin or not. If anything, I get concerned that when this template is used to highlight input by non-admins: it implies that their comments are "flagged" and should be given less weight...even though what they have to say is completely valid. Non-admins were having no problems with participating in places like RFPP, UAA, permissions, etc., before this template existed, so the potential deletion of the template should not serve as a discouragement for non-admins who do frequently comment in those areas. Acalamari 10:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's unevenly used (I'm not an admin and I don't use it), and it reinforces the view that admins are a special class of people. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Admins arn't the ones applying it to other people comments (that I've seen). If a user wants to self-identify their comments as a "non admin observation" then why is there even a controversy over it? The same users can still say "NAO" or "non admin comment" without the template. If you have a problem with it, address the behavior or culture.--v/r - TP 15:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is "address[ing] the behavior or culture". This reinforces the notion in question. People see it and get the wrong impression. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not exactly. This is removing the ease of use of a template to do something an abbreviation can still do (NAO). If you want to address the behavior, you should start an AN or VP thread about the systematic misunderstanding of administrator roles versus non administrators.--v/r - TP 17:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Irish. The point is not to enforce some kind of hierarchy, the point is for admins to be able to see at a glance, without further clicking, that someone may have commented at e.g. UAA, but will not have undertaken any actions: that is, that the case under discussion remains to be resolved. Because often the presence of any sort of response on that sort of page indicates that it has been dealt with, one way or the other. It Is Me Here t / c 16:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"We don't know if problems have been resolved in some cases" sounds like a separate issue that should be addressed in the appropriate venues; trying to rely on this template as one (poor) indicator that a problem has not been resolved sounds like a really bad idea (that apparently isn't working anyway). ElKevbo (talk) 19:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. There are areas, as pointed out above, where the admin does count for more than the non-admin. Maybe the template isn't necessary for ANI, but for other areas it is, and, in any case, is useful in maintaining transparency and clarity of communication for those who choose to use it (for an example, some people hang out at admin's boards enough that you'd think they were admins, etc.). It helps having it, is necessary on some pages, and does no harm. Removing it can only cause harm. Keep it. St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 18:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If we're going to ratify the idea that some boards are admin-only or on some boards non-admins' comments are of less value, let's do so transparently and with the consensus of the community instead of doing it in a roundabout and opaque manner such as having some people use this template. Please note that I am not asserting that having admin-only boards or boards with strict rules about who can comment where and with what weight is inappropriate; in some cases, it's entirely appropriate and useful (e.g. ArbCom). I am arguing against creating such boards and enforcing such rules without transparency and consensus. ElKevbo (talk) 19:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This template fulfills its purpose very well --Kangaroopowah 19:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Ohms law. Also, there is a handy tool that makes it easy to determine what groups an editor belongs to. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Popups can be slow to load, it won't work without js and newbies wont know how to activate it. As well as that some editors may not like popups even if they know how to use it. Best, --Kangaroopowah 22:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This a templete that can be used to politely inform other users that the opinion of the user posting is not one of a Admin. Phearson (talk) 02:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needed at requests for rollback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilderien (talk • contribs)
  • Strong delete waste of space and non-admins comments tend to count less then admin's comment. We do not need to know if an admin/non-admin made that comment.--Deathlaser (talk) 14:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Possible Keep. Needed. ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 16:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you elaborate on this? This isn't just a vote, as you know, and just saying "it's needed" doesn't add anything when there has already been a good deal of discussion regarding whether it is, and dealing with the arguments on both sides. Kansan (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete; we know that "adminship is no big deal" isn't something that the community has been able to live up to, but I believe it is an ideal to strive for, and the result of seeing this template go would outweigh any very minor inconvenience that might be caused (and really, it isn't at all difficult to see if somebody is an admin). Kansan (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: Regardless of admins' supposed status compared to others, this template is useful for non-admin comments in request processes where admins are usually the ones expected to respond initially, especially AIV and RPP.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes, a non-administrator's comment weighs the same as an administrators, however, it's sometimes technically impossible for non-administrators to do certain actions, like protect an article or block an editor. This template will make administrator jobs easier because it help provides details that some might skip over, like in RfPP or AIV. -- Luke (Talk) 20:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is to my agreement that non-admin comments are the same as an administrators, but this template's purpose is to distinguish them to be non-admins. This is particularly useful in WP:RFPP. Of course, yes, non-admins can still distinguish themselves by placing [non-admin] at the end of their comment, but that's all simplified with this template, is it not? This template should be used volunarily, as stated in the documentation: "Can be optionally employed where the commentator feels a need to clarify that one is making an opinion or observation, but is not in the position to make any actions." --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 01:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As above: its use is not to distinguish "less important" comments, but just to point out in pages such as RPP and PERM that the comment is made by someone that actually cannot physically make the decision in the end. I think it is important to distinguish that, especially for new editors who might be approaching those type of pages for the first time.--Mark91it's my world 08:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Sometimes non-admins do make useful observations and in some cases, like WP:Changing username, they can notice things before admins get around to it, making the admin's job quicker (though my example only applies to bureaucrats). AndieM (Am I behaving?) 19:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and discourage non-admins from making irrelevant or useless comments at venues where an admin must make the final decision regardless of any non-admin comments (e.g., PERM). Such comments are generally more suited for a talk page or simply should not be made at all; they clutter the page with often the same thing an admin will have to say, and as this isn't Facebook, there's no need to comment on everything for the sake of commenting. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 20:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The template encourages stratification. But the biggest issue is that since it is not mandatory, any admin who cares about the status of a given editor would need to find out through some other means anyway to be certain (popups is useful for this). I would be more inclined to keep it if it were mandatory on pages where it is truly useful to make the distinction. But since it is not, what's the point? Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are relatively few places that only admins should be discussing things, if any, to the best of my knowledge, let alone any place where a user (such as myself) would have less merit in their points when contributing. In keeping with community standards, when discussing in group discussions, considering an argument less valid because the arguer doesn't have the notional "admin keys" leads to stratification - Orange Suede Sofa made this point, above, in not so many words. I do point out that there are certain non-administrative tasks we engage in at my level (see non-admin closure of AFDs and such, for instance), but that's just a maintenance thing for when admins don't catch those details - but note that we don't use templates for that, instead relying on the well-understood abbreviation NAC - and such a closure is frequently as valid as if an admin closed it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's nothing wrong with a non-admin noting his status, and deletion would only make it harder for people to say what they want to say. Many people find it useful, and we don't prohibit them from saying that they're non-admins, so deletion wouldn't help a thing. Mark91 hits the nail on the head. Nyttend (talk) 20:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep From some of the above votes, it seems as if some people have gotten the impression that they must use this template if it exists because of some metaphorical gun pointed at their heads, and for that reason it should be deleted. However, this is not the case, and it is helpful in some corners of the project; on request pages (such as WP:CHU and WT:AWB/CP, where I came from to participate in this discussion) the requester might hound a non-admin trying to get them to look at the request if they are not explicitly stated as a non-admin. ClayClayClay 22:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete against policy; the opinions of all users get consideration on their individual merits. DGG ( talk ) 01:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete against WP:ADMIN, desysop all keep voters with bits (part of policy this violates - "Stated simply, while the correct use of the tools and appropriate conduct should be considered important, merely "being an administrator" should not be.") Hipocrite (talk) 11:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There should be a simple and decent script to mark admins (and other ranks), like: de:Wikipedia:Helferlein/markAdmins. --MisterGugaruz (talk) 12:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closure, OK so as this discussion will close today, here are some things to keep in mind:

Total:43 Delete:18/43 Neutral:1/43 Keep:24/43 But please don't just make a judgement just on this, as learnt adoption school: 10 valid comments are way better then 100 in-valid comment.--Deathlaser (talk) 12:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Mylo Xyloto

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mylo Xyloto (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

It's redundant and not need. All information can be found on the album article and discography article. Aaron • You Da One 15:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Considering your argument is a valid excuse, wouldn't that mean ALL templates dedicated to albums and their themes should be removed? According to your argument, Templates like Template:The Dark Side of the Moon, Template:A Girl like Me (Rihanna album), Template:Bad (album) and Template:Abbey Road should be deleted because all the information is on a single page or two pages. It just doesn't work that way, i'm afraid, because of the nature of Wikipedia, navigation assistance is more than necessary to, quite literally, assist navigation. RazorEyeEdits (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We don't need this kind of templates people. Why having everything twice, despite already being present in {{Coldplay}} and {{Coldplay singles}}. It's totally useless. — Tomica (talk) 16:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, completely overlapped with the Coldplay templates. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Tomica. To respond to RazorEyeEdits, WP:OSE. Those templates should probably be nominated as well. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per RazorEyeEdits  Liam987 20:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • So much wrong here. The idea with navboxes is that you're supposed to add them to the bottom of all the articles linked within. This plainly isn't appropriate here as most of the linked subjects have only a tenuous connection to the subject (if we added a navbox for every song a person had contributed guest vocals to, articles on certain artists would have fifty or more navboxes. The less said about producers the better). The only article upon which all of these links are appropriate is the album's itself, and in that case they should already be present within the article body. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Statυs (talk) 15:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; the proliferation of these types of templates will end up making articles very unwieldy. Kansan (talk) 17:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:TV network logos

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TV network logos (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not how navboxes work. Outside the Big Three, this navigates not articles, but sections of articles. I see no point in a navbox that jumps only to sections of articles — since only two of the networks actually have "logos" articles (dubious ones), this is technically WP:NENAN. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 14:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox conference

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox conference (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Purpose unclear (no response to my query about that, on its talk page, a month ago). Its mere 25 transclusions are used for a mishmash of schools conferences, sports/ athletics conferences, and business conferences. Some instances are redundant to {{Infobox Sports conference}} and {{Infobox summit}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Nowiki

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nowiki (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Using #tag:nowiki in a template has so many limitations that it is not worth using. The most egregious is exposing strip markers if you include a <ref> tag; see the template doc for examples. Current uses are mostly redundant: the ice hockey articles use it to escape asterisks that are not at the beginning of a line and don't need to be nowikied. Articles like Great West Conference use it for an asterisk at the beginning of a line, but a singular <nowiki /> before the asterisk will fix that. -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 11:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What table? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 22:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The use in Horus Heresy (novels) is a result of misuse of the ; markup for list definition used to bold a line; {{nowiki}} is being used here to prevent the colon from parsing and creating the definition— this uses twelve characters where the six apostrophes would would do the job just nicely and more clearly. I can't figure the use inside the {{worldcat}} note (it isn't a citation).
If you want to disable the appearance in articles, then we can revert the announcement and no one else will participate in the discussion. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 22:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
there is no misuse of code in the article. it was an editorial decision in order to avoid section overcrowding which would have then neccessitated more complicated editing in the toc ({{toc limit}} etc.) {{nowiki}} is used inside {{worldcat}} to avoid rendering problems when there are brackets [] in the url's display text. the pertinent target is the name of a record at worldcat, and therefore has to be used verbatim (w. the brackets).
don't revert any announcements. just put an {{ambox}} or similar at the top of the page, so it doesn't disrupt readers, most of whom, i wager, couldn't care less about this discussion. 65.88.88.126 (talk) 23:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
edit: i'm in the process of editing Horus Heresy (novels) to remove the list def. code. imo, this makes the article less editor-friendly, as the markup was used to specify that the paras. following are indeed part of a listing. the reason the more formal section listing was not used i've explained above. 65.88.88.126 (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am confused by the uses left like {{italic|Mechanicum: {{nowiki|[knowledge is power]}} The {{nowiki}} there interacts with {{italic}} in some odd manner and just ends up wrapping the included content in <code />. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 09:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
here is a clue: since the wrapping appeared after {{nowiki}} was tagged for deletion, the culprit may be the notify tag. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. That obviously inserts the TfD markup. I tested by replacing it with {{nowiki/sandbox}}, resulting in Mechanicum: [knowledge is power] (the funky w is the giveaway here). Why the nowiki inside italics? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 09:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • no, dig deeper. the "funky w" is there because {{nowiki/sandbox}} inserts <code>...</code>, as {{cnw}} does:

{{worldcat}} with {{nowiki}} renders Mechanicum: [knowledge is power] in libraries (WorldCat catalog)
{{worldcat}} with {{nowiki/sandbox}} renders Mechanicum: [knowledge is power] in libraries (WorldCat catalog) – which is the same as below:
{{worldcat}} with {{cnw}} renders Mechanicum: [knowledge is power] in libraries (WorldCat catalog) – notice the "funky w"
more:

Markup Renders as 
{{italic|Mechanicum: {{nowiki|[knowledge is power]}}}}

Mechanicum: [knowledge is power]

notice that the tfd notice is entirely in italics, while the txt within {{nowiki}} is not. i think the problem may be with <span>...</span> and/or the use of italics within the tfd notice, as in:

Markup Renders as 
<i>Mechanicum: [knowledge is power]</i>

Mechanicum: [knowledge is power]

without italics:

Markup Renders as 
Mechanicum: {{nowiki|[knowledge is power]}}

Mechanicum: [knowledge is power]

as you see above, only Nowiki is italicized in the tfd notice, per code.
as was said before, this is italicized because it is a book title+sub title. also, it is the name of a worldcat record. url display text that ends in brackets renders incorrectly; therefore {{nowiki}} has to be applied. 65.88.88.126 (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

addition: in case you missed it, the notice also exposes the naked url. 65.88.88.126 (talk) 14:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • ok, replacing <span>...</span> with <div>...</div> resolved the span/italics problem. however removing |type=inline from {{tfd}} is actually making things worse. and, something still must be adding a bracket somewhere. it is interpreted as wikicode and results in exposing the worldcat url (|oclc= in {{worldcat}}). 65.88.88.126 (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was being used in a bunch of ice hockey season articles, but as I noted above, this use was completely redundant. A concerned editor must have cleaned those up. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 09:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
i beg to differ. no encyclopedia, not even a free one of uneven quality like this, deserves casual editors. casual readers are ok (readers are paramount anyway). drive-by proof-readers are probably ok, yet some articles employ specialized nomenclature that would result in incorrect proofing by casual proof-readers. even casual content-providers can be ok, provided they are knowledgeable. however imo editors do not have the luxury. they must be willing to dedicate time and effort, and must be knowledgeable about the subject.
just for the sake of argument, i contend that it is as likely a "casual editor" will be confused by the code as by the template. where is the proof either way?
a non-casual editor should be able to recognize that 1. this is a template 2. its function is self explanatory 3. the presence of a template rather than code may be consistent with the markup practices of the article as input by other non-drive-by editors.
i'd prefer minor utility templates to be left alone. unless they break something else that cannot be fixed, they represent work done that someone may find useful. they are one more tool for editors. maybe their usefulness is not apparent to someone. it's ok, it may be apparent to someone else. why the nit-picking, fussing about and constant limiting of editor choice? 65.88.88.127 (talk) 19:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Making it easier to edit is of paramount importance to its continuing development. TIMTOWDI is a hostile paradigm for learning a new language as it leads to wholly unnecessary confusion and divergence between different deployments. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
great, let's start talking in slogans. in my understanding, wales didn't start wikipedia to give wannabe editors and the chattering classes a hobby. his concern was speed and timeliness. widening the editor pool is the natural outcome of this philosophy. that is why in wikipedia (unlike other encyclopedias) accuracy and reliability is a statistic, not an expectation. people wouldn't want to pay for that... but the fact that it is free has become another slogan. with this in mind, what is of paramount importance are readers using it and whether they are served. i'm not saying that anyone must not edit – my opinion is that "anyone" should not, at least not when the editor's indulgence is the main reason.
actually you are saying that anyone must not use some templates. if you don't want to use them, fine, just ignore them. but you are restricting everybody else. that is not hostile? templates are wikipedia's own native language, they are not "a new language". what is foreign is html or html-style markup. and again, why is {{nowiki}} more confusing than <nowiki>...</nowiki>? 65.88.88.126 (talk) 14:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ok, see above. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 19:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Expand

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete per this discussion and previous discussion. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 03:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Expand (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that any of the deletion discussions for this template suggested that it should be tagged as historical and retained. After all the existing transclusions were removed, User:TenPoundHammer tagged it as speedy G6, and it was deleted. User:Rich Farmbrough restored the template in February 2011 as a test case for Wikipedia:Soft deletion, a proposal which has since failed. User:MickMacNee seems to have invented the reasoning that it should be retained to preserve old article revisions here. I am nominating this deprecated template for full deletion here because I believe the previous deletion discussions endorsed full deletion and now that soft deletion has failed, its test case should be deleted along with it. This was suggested a while ago but not carried out. I also don't think there's any value in keeping this template as historical; we've never worried about breaking templates in past revisions of articles before and I don't think we should start now. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge {{expand further}} here. (or rather, overwrite by moving "expand further" on top of this location) -- if there are no transclusions, there is no problem with doing this. 70.24.244.198 (talk) 13:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm afraid I don't understand what you're trying to do here. I'm suggesting that this deleted template be actually deleted. If you'd like to suggest merging (or as far as I can tell, replacing) expand further to this location, I think that's a separate discussion which should be carried out on the talk page of that template. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Expand" itself was totally a vague template, like Template:very long, which is still under discussion per WP:RFC; also, it was used in sections, as well. "Expand further (or article)", nonetheless, tends to go for articles that need expansion for general readers. If we merge this template into "expand further", then other editors will use rather "expand" than "expand article" because of... "convenience", which is hardly a strong point to use. In other words, maybe editors would deliberately type "expand" on sections rather than top of an article. --George Ho (talk) 23:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to {{expand further}}. I agree there is no reason to mark as historical, but a redirect makes sense. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 13:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't make sense to me, but I see that points you make are not bad. However, as said above, this would lead to others misusing both templates, as "expand" was misused before. "expand" was also used in sections previously, and I haven't seen one argument about how "expand" was used. Instead, I see people voting merge or delete by pointing out what it already is: a historic monument, which people here oppose. --George Ho (talk) 23:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tbe compromise of keeping it for historical revisions was a test case for a failed proposal. Past AFDs have built up a consensus for it to be deleted and no longer used, so we should go with that. Redirecting to {{expand further}} will only confuse the matter. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that merging into "expand further" could make things complicated, but is historical suppression and its historical value the strong rationale for deletion? Under this logic, WT:spoiler/old template may not be historical and should be deleted, correct? Or "spoiler" and "expand" are two different cases, right? I know that "spoiler" template is currently a historical monument of influence. Why can't "expand"? --George Ho (talk) 00:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 11:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'redirect to "expand further". A sensible compromise solution. An alternative, would be to bring the original decision back to Del Rev, as a decision in opposition to the general policy that articles should be improved when possible. DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without a redirect. {{expand further}} has a significantly different meaning and should not be confused with {{expand}}. --NYKevin @680, i.e. 15:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is moving to "Wikipedia talk" namespace not suggested? Why is Wikipedia talk:Spoiler/old template not used as an example for this discussion? --George Ho (talk) 23:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • What point would that do? That shouldn't be there either. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you think the "spoiler/old" is pointless, why not nominating it for deletion? Besides, "spoiler" and "expand" should be treated as historical to improve the minds of editors to make better decisions. They can learn that "spoiler" used to exist; even though the spoiler is down, it's still viewable, in case they wanted to tag any plot for ruining a surprise. Look at "expand": "Expand" is still viewable, in spite of its deprecated status. Why do you think they typed that for? --George Ho (talk) 01:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • If "spoiler/old" is still being used to "tag any plot for ruining a surprise", then that is a direct violation of the deletion discussion for that template and is a reason we SHOULDN'T keep "old" versions of it around as historical. What benefit does maintaining this edit history serve? It's not like Expand or Spoiler were particularly intricate templates whose code are worth emulating. Axem Titanium (talk) 13:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • True, if it were used as a template "{{WT:Spoiler/old template}}", then that's a violation. Same as "{{Template:expand}}". Nevertheless, to me, that's a flimsy reason to delete it. Deleting this template and that page for possibility of violating deletion consensus or its "stale" historical value... is it really strong enough to get rid of this template and that miscellaneous page? What's the point of deleting them if they're going to be re-created again or re-evaluated? What's the point of deleting them if they have been kept for years? What's the point of deleting them if people are pleased to see them gone? What's the point of deleting them if "expand article" was created, while "expand" was still active until its fall? --George Ho (talk) 15:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • I don't think any of those rhetorical questions really gets to the point of why this is debate is happening. Things are deleted because they are being misused, or not appropriate for Wikipedia. Things shouldn't be recreated without going through the WP:DRV process because presumably they were deleted for a reason. We have a speedy deletion criterion for just this occasion: WP:CSD#G4. This is a special case because it was revived for a village pump proposal, but now that it has failed, the recreation reason no longer exists and so this should be deleted again. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, spoiler is spoiler. Expand is expand. I don't know. I won't change my vote just because of "valid" reasoning. However in fact, I'm speechless about what you said: its value as historical is too "stale" for Wikipedia. Nevertheless, why not merging spoiler and expand to one non-Template namespace? --George Ho (talk) 17:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
It is a shame that the nominator did not inform me of this TfD. I may take this to DRV. Rich Farmbrough, 11:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Template:The Wrong Version

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Wrong Version (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Move to BJAODN. MichealJS (talk) 11:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_9&oldid=1091625543"